Why We Quote
Having recently blogged on the subject of originality, quoting appears as an antithesis. Still, if you are interested in the culture and history of quotation, this book by Open University scholar Ruth Finnegan will be of interest: “Why Do We Quote?: The Culture and History of Quotation”. Finnegan dedicates her book to “the many voices that have shaped and resounded in my own”; then she asks interesting questions in her preface: “What does it mean this strange human propensity to repeat chunks of text from elsewhere and to repeat others’ voices? How does it work and where did it come from? Does it matter? Why, anyway, do we quote?”.
Admitting that her book is biased towards western culture, and her research focused on southern England, she begins the book in contemporary England, the “here and now”, and moves back chronologically to understand the background to her subject. A large scale survey conducted in 2006 shows that English people quote for various reasons, and that proverbs constitute a large proportion of quotations. The proverb “more haste less speed” appears repeatedly in her survey results. Other proverbs include “Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you”, “Too many cooks spoil the broth”, and “Laugh and the world laughs with you, cry and you’ll weep alone.” Quotes are used not only to share information, but often, especially in conversation, to evoke irony, a pun or analogy which the listener must catch. In e-mail, quotes have become fashionable as a “tag or sort of signature”. In persuasion, quoting famous people tends to add credibility to what is being argued; it may add “weight” or “ammunition”. Quoting may also be used for the sake of humour or sarcasm, as in “A bad workman blames his tools”. On the other hand, many of those surveyed had reservations against quoting: it can border on plagiarism, it is unoriginal, a sort of “parroting” to be avoided, a sign of possible laziness. Some had no objections to it, as long as it was not overdone. Still, what was at issue was not the quantity but the appropriacy of what was being quoted: was it necessary, or was it done for the sake of pompously showing off?
Historically speaking, Finnegan says, the origin of quotation marks is not clear. For example, different versions of the Bible used different devices to indicate reported speech: while newer versions include angled quotation marks, older versions used devices such as indentation, capital letters, or colons. Some texts only used verbs to indicate spoken or written words. She indicates that the ancient Greeks were probably the first to use inverted commas: a wedge shape > was used as a marginal sign to draw attention to anything especially important in a text: linguistic, historical or controversial. This diple mark eventually metamorphosed into the quotation marks we use today. She notes stylistic and cultural differences in the way people quote across languages, identifying a disadvantage to using quotation marks; they are too binding: “they impose too exact an impression…. Quote marks are too crude a signal, it could be said, for the subtleties of submerged or fading quotation, allusions, parody, intertextuality, leaving no room for finer gradations” (p.109).
Finnegan distinguishes between quoting to endorse another and quoting to set oneself apart, keeping the other at a distance; the way the quotation interacts with the rest of the text should reflect whether the other is respected or “mocked… parodied, or belittled” (p. 171). In a chapter entitled “Controlling Quotation”, the author indicates that quoting has become a regulated social activity; not only is plagiarism frowned upon, there are laws protecting intellectual property and copyright. In “Harvesting Others’ Words”, Finnegan notes that collecting quotations has been common in the west for millennia, but is not restricted to the western tradition. Ancient Mesopotamia, early China, India and the Arab world, among others, have their own collections. There seems to be a moral force to the words of past generations – a certain wisdom. As for proverbs with pictorial illustrations, the west first saw these in medieval times, as reflected in the French collection Proverbs en Rimes later translated to English (p. 179).
The book ends with the conclusion that there is no single, clear-cut answer to the question of why people quote: quoting is a “normal” aspect of language, which, like other human behaviours, has its own social regulations. Finnegan’s final question is why not?
It is hard to disagree with this book. After all, it is based on facts rather than conjecture. It is highly relevant to historians, teachers, and university students who write substantive essays. It is comprehensive in that it tackles both written and oral texts, viewing them in different contexts: those of religion, philosophy, the family, and society at large. On the other hand, as the author rightly indicates, excessive use of others’ words – and ideas – may give the impression of laziness or lack of originality, so students need training in how, what, and when to quote.
The challenge of original expression is of course multiplied for those writing or speaking in a second or third language, so language teachers take heed.
Posted by May Mikati on 07 June 2012, 11:24 AM
Having recently blogged on the subject of originality, quoting appears as an antithesis. Still, if you are interested in the culture and history of quotation, this book by Open University scholar Ruth Finnegan will be of interest: “Why Do We Quote?: The Culture and History of Quotation”. Finnegan dedicates her book to “the many voices that have shaped and resounded in my own”; then she asks interesting questions in her preface: “What does it mean this strange human propensity to repeat chunks of text from elsewhere and to repeat others’ voices? How does it work and where did it come from? Does it matter? Why, anyway, do we quote?”.
Admitting that her book is biased towards western culture, and her research focused on southern England, she begins the book in contemporary England, the “here and now”, and moves back chronologically to understand the background to her subject. A large scale survey conducted in 2006 shows that English people quote for various reasons, and that proverbs constitute a large proportion of quotations. The proverb “more haste less speed” appears repeatedly in her survey results. Other proverbs include “Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you”, “Too many cooks spoil the broth”, and “Laugh and the world laughs with you, cry and you’ll weep alone.” Quotes are used not only to share information, but often, especially in conversation, to evoke irony, a pun or analogy which the listener must catch. In e-mail, quotes have become fashionable as a “tag or sort of signature”. In persuasion, quoting famous people tends to add credibility to what is being argued; it may add “weight” or “ammunition”. Quoting may also be used for the sake of humour or sarcasm, as in “A bad workman blames his tools”. On the other hand, many of those surveyed had reservations against quoting: it can border on plagiarism, it is unoriginal, a sort of “parroting” to be avoided, a sign of possible laziness. Some had no objections to it, as long as it was not overdone. Still, what was at issue was not the quantity but the appropriacy of what was being quoted: was it necessary, or was it done for the sake of pompously showing off?
Historically speaking, Finnegan says, the origin of quotation marks is not clear. For example, different versions of the Bible used different devices to indicate reported speech: while newer versions include angled quotation marks, older versions used devices such as indentation, capital letters, or colons. Some texts only used verbs to indicate spoken or written words. She indicates that the ancient Greeks were probably the first to use inverted commas: a wedge shape > was used as a marginal sign to draw attention to anything especially important in a text: linguistic, historical or controversial. This diple mark eventually metamorphosed into the quotation marks we use today. She notes stylistic and cultural differences in the way people quote across languages, identifying a disadvantage to using quotation marks; they are too binding: “they impose too exact an impression…. Quote marks are too crude a signal, it could be said, for the subtleties of submerged or fading quotation, allusions, parody, intertextuality, leaving no room for finer gradations” (p.109).
Finnegan distinguishes between quoting to endorse another and quoting to set oneself apart, keeping the other at a distance; the way the quotation interacts with the rest of the text should reflect whether the other is respected or “mocked… parodied, or belittled” (p. 171). In a chapter entitled “Controlling Quotation”, the author indicates that quoting has become a regulated social activity; not only is plagiarism frowned upon, there are laws protecting intellectual property and copyright. In “Harvesting Others’ Words”, Finnegan notes that collecting quotations has been common in the west for millennia, but is not restricted to the western tradition. Ancient Mesopotamia, early China, India and the Arab world, among others, have their own collections. There seems to be a moral force to the words of past generations – a certain wisdom. As for proverbs with pictorial illustrations, the west first saw these in medieval times, as reflected in the French collection Proverbs en Rimes later translated to English (p. 179).
The book ends with the conclusion that there is no single, clear-cut answer to the question of why people quote: quoting is a “normal” aspect of language, which, like other human behaviours, has its own social regulations. Finnegan’s final question is why not?
It is hard to disagree with this book. After all, it is based on facts rather than conjecture. It is highly relevant to historians, teachers, and university students who write substantive essays. It is comprehensive in that it tackles both written and oral texts, viewing them in different contexts: those of religion, philosophy, the family, and society at large. On the other hand, as the author rightly indicates, excessive use of others’ words – and ideas – may give the impression of laziness or lack of originality, so students need training in how, what, and when to quote.
The challenge of original expression is of course multiplied for those writing or speaking in a second or third language, so language teachers take heed.
Posted by May Mikati on 07 June 2012, 11:24 AM
